Difference between revisions of "What is Systems Thinking?"

From SEBoK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Text replacement - "SEBoK v. 2.9, released 20 November 2023" to "SEBoK v. 2.10, released 06 May 2024")
 
(138 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The basis of systems thinking is to use the notion of system [[Holism (glossary)]] to explore real world situations and to build up a set of related [[System Concepts|system concepts]] to enable this.  In this article we consider the different ways in which [[Systems Thinking (glossary)]] has been defined, and how this relates to the perspective of those defining it. We then consider how the scope of systems thinking has grown with the associated developments in [[Systems Science (glossary)]], and the extent to which modern systems thinking provides the foundation for dealing with engineered system problems.
+
----
 +
'''''Lead Author:''''' ''Rick Adcock'', '''''Contributing Authors:''''' ''Brian Wells, Bud Lawson''
 +
----
 +
This topic is part of the [[Systems Thinking]] knowledge area (KA). The {{Term|Scope (glossary)|scope}} of {{Term|Systems Thinking (glossary)|systems thinking}} is a starting point for dealing with real world situations using a set of related {{Term|Systems Concept (glossary)|systems concepts}} discussed in the [[Concepts of Systems Thinking]] topic, systems {{Term| Principle (glossary)|principles}} discussed in the [[Principles of Systems Thinking]] topic, and system {{Term|Pattern (glossary)|patterns}} discussed in the [[Patterns of Systems Thinking]] topic.
 +
 
 +
==Introduction==
 +
The concepts, principles, and patterns of systems thinking have arisen both from the work of systems scientists and from the work of practitioners applying the insights of {{Term|Systems Science (glossary)|systems science}} to real-world {{Term|Problem (glossary)|problems}}.
 +
 
 +
{{Term|Holism (glossary)|Holism}} has been a dominant theme in systems thinking for nearly a century, in recognition of the need to consider a {{Term|System (glossary)|system}} as a whole because of observed phenomena such as {{Term|Emergence (glossary)|emergence}}. Proponents have included Wertheimer, Smuts, Bertalanffy, Weiss, (Ackoff 1979), (Klir 2001), and (Koestler 1967) among many others.
 +
 
 +
A more detailed discussion of the most important movements in systems theory can be found in [[History of Systems Science]].
 +
 
 +
==Identifying Systems of Interest==
  
==Definitions of Systems Thinking==
+
When humans observe or interact with a system, they allocate {{Term| Boundary (glossary)|boundaries}} and names to parts of the system. This naming may follow the natural hierarchy of the system, but will also reflect the needs and experience of the observer to associate {{Term|Element (glossary)|elements}} with common {{Term|Attribute (glossary)|attributes}} of {{Term|Purpose (glossary)|purposes}} relevant to their own. Thus, a number of {{Term|System-of-Interest (glossary)|systems of interest}} (SoIs) (Flood and Carson 1993) must be identified and they must be both relevant and include a set of elements which represent a system whole. This way of observing systems wherein the {{Term|Complex (glossary)|complex}} system relationships are focused around a particular system boundary is called '''systemic resolution'''.
  
 +
Systems thinking requires an ongoing process of attention and adaptation to ensure that one has appropriately identified boundaries, dependencies, and relationships. Churchman (1968) and others have also considered broader ethical, political, and social questions related to management science with regards to the relative power and responsibility of the participants in system interventions. These are seen by critical systems thinkers as key factors to be considered in defining problem system boundaries.
  
 +
A {{Term|System Context (glossary)|system context}} can be used to define a SoI and to capture and agree on the important relationships between it, such as the systems which it works with directly and the systems which influence it in some way. When this approach is used to focus on part of a larger system, a balance of {{Term|Reductionism (glossary)|reductionism}} and {{Term|Holism (glossary)|holism}} is applied. This balance sits at the heart of a {{Term|Systems Approach (glossary)|systems approach}}. A systems context provides the tool for applying this balance and is thus an essential part of any systems approach and hence, of systems engineering (SE) as well. Approaches for describing the {{Term|Context (glossary)|context}} of the different types of {{Term|Engineered System (glossary)|engineered systems}} are discussed in the [[Engineered System Context]] topic within the [[Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems]] KA.
  
Many attribute the notion of systems thinking to the work of '''Aristotle''' in examining multiple discipline related aspects in what is termed metaphysics. In modern times, the field of systems thinking has been evolving since the 1920’s when the Austrian biologist '''von Bertalanffy''' introduced the idea of using biological analogues to systems in general (von Bertalanffy 1968)
+
==Thoughts on Systems Thinking==
 +
Senge (1990) discusses {{Term|Systems Thinking (glossary)|systems thinking}} in a number of ways as <blockquote>''a discipline for seeing wholes ... a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things ... a process of discovery and diagnosis ... and as a sensibility for the subtle interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique character.''(Senge 2006, 68-69)</blockquote>
  
(Senge 1990, p. 6-7) defines systems thinking in his seminal work on learning organizations: “Systems thinking is a process of discovery and diagnosis – an inquiry into the governing processes underlying the problems we face and the opportunities we have.” Senge (2006) further describes systems thinking as follows:
+
Churchman came to define a {{Term|Systems Approach (glossary)|systems approach}} as requiring consideration of a system from the {{Term|Viewpoint (glossary)|viewpoint}} of those outside its boundary (Churchman 1979). There are many demonstrations that choosing too narrow a boundary, either in terms of scope or timeline, results in the problem of the moment being solved only at the expense of a similar or bigger problem being created somewhere else in space, community, or time (Senge 2006) and (Meadows 1977). This is the “shifting the burden” archetype described in [[Patterns of Systems Thinking]] topic.  
<blockquote>''Systems thinking is a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things, for seeing patterns of change rather than static snapshots. It is a set of general principles- distilled over the course of the twentieth century, spanning fields as diverse as the physical and social sciences, engineering, and management... During the last thirty years, these tools have been applied to understand a wide range of corporate, urban, regional, economic, political, ecological, and even psychological systems. And systems thinking is a sensibility - for the subtle interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique character.'' (Senge 2006, 68-69)</blockquote>
 
According to Senge and his colleagues (Senge 1994), a good systems thinker, particularly in an organizational setting, is someone who can see four levels operating simultaneously: events, patterns of behavior, systems, and mental models.
 
  
More recent chaos and complexity theories have also impacted the development of systems thinking, including the treatment of such concepts as emergence.  According to Gharajedaghi:
+
Churchman believes that an important {{Term|Component (glossary)|component}} of system knowledge comes from "others" or "enemies" outside the system; the systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another (Churchman 1968).  In this famous phrase, Churchman suggests that people can step outside a system they are in and mentally try to consider it through the lenses of other people's {{Term|Value (glossary)|values}}. Churchman (1979) identified four main enemies of the systems approach namely: politics, morality, religion and aesthetics.  
<blockquote>''Systems thinking is the art of simplifying complexity. It is about seeing through chaos, managing interdependency, and understanding choice.  We see the world as increasingly more complex and chaotic because we use inadequate concepts to explain it.  When we understand something, we no longer see it as chaotic or complex.'' (Gharajedaghi 1999, p. 283)</blockquote>
 
The definition of systems thinking has evolved over time as advances have been made in systems theory. Some additional examples of systems thinking definitions are as follows:
 
*“Systems thinking requires the consciousness of the fact that we deal with models of our reality and not with the reality itself.”  (Ossimitz 1997, p. 1)
 
*“…what is often called “systemic thinking” …is …a bundle of capabilities, and at the heart of it is the ability to apply our normal thought processes, our common sense, to the circumstances of a given situation. (Dörner 1996, p. 199);
 
*“Systems thinking provides a powerful way of taking account of causal connections that are distant in time and space.”  (Stacey 2000, p. 9)
 
A broader perspective considers systems thinking to be one element in a wider system of holistic thinking.  Kasser defines holistic thinking as follows: "...the combination of analysis [in the form of elaboration], systems thinking and critical thinking." (Kasser 2010)
 
For several years, Gene Bellinger has provided insight into the field of systems thinking via his popular web-site www.systems-thinking.org.  He initiated a LinkedIn discussion group entitled Systems Thinking World and the wiki site www.systemswiki.org. Bellinger makes the following highly relevant observation concerning the field of systems thinking and the benefits on his website:
 
  
<blockquote>''As I have continued to ponder the meaning of Systems Thinking over the years in conjunction with reading and many conversations it would seem that the understanding has evolved, thankfully. There was a time when I thought Systems Thinking was just a not very grown up version of System Dynamics though I have come to understand it is really far more encompassing. While the meaning continues to evolve my foundational belief remains solid. Systems Thinking will enable you to better understand the world around you and enable you to have more control over your life than any other subject you may undertake to study. For situations that concern you Systems Thinking will enable you to create approaches for dealing with these situations that are highly likely to produce the desired results while minimizing unexpected consequences.'' (Bellinger 2011)</blockquote>
+
To Churchman, the "enemies" of the systems approach provide a powerful way of learning about the systems approach, precisely because they enable the rational thinker to step outside the boundary of a system and to look at it. It means that systems thinkers are not necessarily just involved within a system but are essentially involved in reasoning and decisions "outside" of systems rationality.
  
==Developments in System Thinking==
+
Some additional perspectives on systems thinking definitions are as follows:
The work of system scientists such as '''von Bertalanffy''' has been the foundation for the creation of applied methodologies to deal with real world system problems, the development of these ideas have in turn influenced the scope of systems thinkingThese approaches have been categorized as '''hard''' and '''soft''' approaches, defined as follows:
+
* “Systems thinking requires the consciousness of the fact that we deal with models of our reality and not with the reality itself.”  (Ossimitz 1997, 1)
 +
* “…what is often called ‘systemic thinking’ …is …a bundle of capabilities, and at the heart of it is the ability to apply our normal thought processes, our common sense, to the circumstances of a given situation. (Dörner 1996, 199)
 +
* “Systems thinking provides a powerful way of taking account of causal connections that are distant in time and space.” (Stacey 2000, 9)
  
*'''Hard''' approaches consider problems as “a difficult matter requiring solution, something hard to understand, accomplish or deal with” (Oxford English Dictionary).
+
{{Term|Chaos (glossary)|Chaos}} and {{Term|Complexity (glossary)|complexity}} theories have also impacted the development of systems thinking, including the treatment of such concepts as {{Term|Emergence (glossary)|emergence}}. According to Gharajedaghi:
*'''Soft''' approaches consider problems as “ arising from everyday events and ideas, and may be perceived differently by different people. Such problems are not constructed by the investigator as are laboratory problems” (Checkland, 1981).
+
<blockquote>''Systems thinking is the art of simplifying complexity. It is about seeing through chaos, managing interdependency, and understanding choice. We see the world as increasingly more complex and chaotic because we use inadequate concepts to explain it. When we understand something, we no longer see it as chaotic or complex.'' (Gharajedaghi 1999, 283)</blockquote>
  
In [[Hard System (glossary)]] approaches the problems may be complex and difficult, but they are known and can fully expressed by the investigator.  Such problems can be solved by selecting from the best available solutions (possibly with some modification or integration to create an optimum solution).  In this context, the term "systems" is used to describe real world things, a solution system is selected, created and then deployed to solve the problem.
+
Kasser considers systems thinking to be one element in a wider system of {{Term|Holistic (glossary)|holistic}} thinking. Kasser defines holistic thinking as follows: "...the combination of analysis [in the form of elaboration], systems thinking and critical thinking" (Kasser 2010).
  
[[Soft System (glossary)]] approaches reject the idea of a single problem and consider '''problematic''' situations in which different people will perceive different issues depending upon their own viewpoint and experience.  These problematic situations are not solved, but managed through interventions which seek to reduce "discomfort" among the participants.  The term system is used to describe systems of ideas, conceptual systems which guide our understanding of the situation or help in the selection of intervention strategies.
+
==Systems Thinking and the Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge==
  
These three ideas of “problem vs. problematic situation”; “solution vs. discomfort reduction” and “the system vs. systems understanding” encapsulate the differences between hard and soft approaches (Flood and Carson, 1993).
+
From these discussions, one can see systems thinking as both a set of founding ideas for the development of systems theories and practices and also as a pervasive way of thinking needed by those developing and applying those theories.  
  
'''Churchman''' (Churchman, 1979) and others have also considered broader ethics political and social questions related to management science, with regards to the relative power and responsibility of the participants in system interventions. '''Jackson''' proposes a frame for considering which approach should be applied, please see: [http://www.systemswiki.org/index.php?title=System_of_Systems_Methodologies_(SOSM) Jackson's Framework]. In Jackson's framework the following definitions apply to the participants involved in solving the problem:
+
The SEBoK is particularly focused on how systems thinking can support a [[Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems|systems approach to engineered systems]].  
*[[Unitary (glossary)]]: A problem situation in which participants "have similar values, beliefs and interests. They share common purposes and are all involved, in one way or another, in decision-making about how to realize their agreed objectives." (Jackson 2003, p. 19)
 
*[[Pluralist (glossary)]]: A problem situation involving participants in which "although their basic interests are compatible, they do not share the same values and beliefs. Space needs to be made available within which debate, disagreement, even conifct, can take place. If this is done, and all feel they have been involved in decision-making, then accommodations and compromises can be found. Participants will come to agree, at least temporarily, on productive ways forward and will act accordingly." (Jackson 2003, p. 19)
 
*[[Coercive (glossary)]]: A problem situation in which the participants "have few interests in common and, if free to express them, would hold conficting values and beliefs. Compromise is not possible and so no agreed objectives direct action. Decisions are taken on the basis of who has most power and various forms of coercion employed to ensure adherence to commands." (Jackson 2003, p. 19)
 
  
Jackson's framework suggests that for simple and complex systems with unitary participants, hard and dynamic systems thinking applies, respectively. For simple and complex systems with pluralist participants, soft systems thinking applies. For simple and complex systems with coercive participants, '''emancipatory''' and [[Postmodernist (glossary)]] system thinking applies, respectively.  These thinking approaches consider all attempts to look for system solutions to be temporary and ineffective in situations where the power of individuals and groups of people dominate any system structures we create. They advocate an approach which encourages diversity, free thinking and creativity of individuals and in the organization's structures. Thus, modern system thinking has the breadth needed to deal with a broad range of complex problems and solutions.
+
In order to examine a SoI in more detail, to understand, use, or change it in some way, practitioners are faced with an apparent “systems thinking paradox.” One can only truly understand a system by considering all of its possible relationships and interactions, inside and outside of its boundary and in all possible future situations (of both system creation and life), but this makes it apparently impossible for people to understand a system or to predict all of the consequences of changes to it.
 +
 
 +
If this means that all possible system relationships and {{Term|Environment (glossary)|environmental}} conditions must be considered to fully understand the consequences of creating or changing a system, what useful work can be done?
 +
 
 +
In many ways this is the essence of all human endeavors, whether they are technical, managerial, social or political, the so-called ''known knowns'' and ''unknown unknowns''. The systems approach is a way of tackling real world {{Term|Problem (glossary)|problems}} and making use of the {{Term|Concept (glossary)|concepts}}, {{Term|Principle (glossary)|principles}} and {{Term|Pattern (glossary)|patterns}} of systems thinking to enable systems to be engineered and used.
 +
 
 +
The systems principles of {{Term|Encapsulation (glossary)|encapsulation}} and separation of concerns in [[Principles of Systems Thinking]] relate to this issue. Some of the detail of complex situations must be hidden to allow focus on changes to a {{Term|System Element (glossary)|system element}}. The impact must be considered of any changes that might be made across sufficient related system {{Term|Component (glossary)|components}} to fit within the acceptable commercial and social {{Term|Risk (glossary)|risks}} that must be considered. Engineering and management disciplines deal with this by gathering as much knowledge as necessary to proceed at a risk level acceptable to the required need. The assessment of what is enough and how much risk to take can, to some extent, be codified with rules and regulations, and managed through {{Term|Process (glossary)|processes}} and procedures; however, it is ultimately a combination of the skill and judgment of the individuals performing the work.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
===Citations===
 
Bellinger, G. 2011. "Systems Thinking Definitions", Retrieved September 7, 2011 from http://www.systemswiki.org/index.php?title=Systems_Thinking_Definitions.
 
  
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. ''[[General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications]]''. Revised ed. New York, NY: Braziller.
+
===Works Cited===
 +
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. ''[[General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications]],'' Revised ed. New York, NY, USA: Braziller.
 +
 
 +
Churchman, C.W. 1968. ''The Systems Approach''. New York, NY, USA: Delacorte Press.
 +
 
 +
Churchman, C.W. 1979. ''The Systems Approach and Its Enemies''. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books.
  
Churchman, C. W. 1968. ''[[The Systems Approach and its Enemies]]''. New York, NY, USA: Dell Publishing.
+
Checkland, P. 1981. ''Systems Thinking, Systems Practice''. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.  
  
Dorner, H., and A. Karpati. 2008. "Mentored innovation in teacher training using two virtual collaborative learning environments." In ''Beyond knowledge: The legacy of competence--meaningful computer-based learning environments''., eds. J. Zumbach, N. Schwartz, T. Seufert and L. Kester. Vol. VIII. New York, NY: Springer.  
+
Dorner, H., and A. Karpati. 2008. "Mentored innovation in teacher training using two virtual collaborative learning environments," in ''Beyond Knowledge: The Legacy of Competence--Meaningful Computer-Based Learning Environments'', eds. J. Zumbach, N. Schwartz, T. Seufert and L. Kester. Vol. VIII. New York, NY, USA: Springer.  
  
Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. ''[[Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity]]: A platform for designing.'' 1st ed. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.  
+
Flood, R.L. and E.R. Carson. 1993. ''Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science'', 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.  
  
Jackson, M. 2003. ''Systems Thinking: Creating Holisms for Managers.'' Wiley; Chichester
+
Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. ''[[Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity]]: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture,'' 1st ed. Woburn, MA, USA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  
Kasser, J. 2010. "Holistic thinking and how it can produce innovative solutions to difficult problems." Paper presented at 7th Bi-annual European Systems Engineering Conference (EuSEC), 24-27 May 2010, Stockholm, Sweden.  
+
Jackson, M. 1989. "Which Systems Methodology When?  Initial Results from a Research Program," in R. Flood, M. Jackson and P. Keys (eds), ''Systems Prospects: The Next Ten Years of Systems Research.'' New York, NY, USA: Plenum.
  
Ossimitz, G. The development of systems thinking skills using system dynamics modeling tools. in Universitat Klagenfurt [database online]. Klagenfurt, Austria, 1997 [cited November 12 2007]. Available from http://wwwu.uni-klu.ac.at/gossimit/sdyn/gdm_eng.htm.  
+
Kasser, J. 2010. "Holistic thinking and how it can produce innovative solutions to difficult problems." Paper presented at 7th Bi-annual European Systems Engineering Conference (EuSEC), Stockholm, Sweden, 24-27 May 2010.  
  
Senge, P. M. 1990, 2006. ''[[The Fifth Discipline]]: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.'' New York, NY, USA: Doubleday Currency.
+
Meadows, D. H. et al. 1977. "Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind." New American Library, paperback, ISBN 0-451-13695-0; Universe Books, hardcover, 1972, ISBN 0-87663-222-3 (scarce).
  
Senge, P. M., A. Klieiner, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross, and B. J. Smith. 1994. ''The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization''. New York, NY: Crown Business.  
+
Ossimitz, G. 1997. "The development of systems thinking skills using system dynamics modeling tools," in Universitat Klagenfurt [database online]. Klagenfurt, Austria: Universitat Klagenfurt.Accessed November 12 2007. Available at: http://wwwu.uni-klu.ac.at/gossimit/sdyn/gdm_eng.htm.  
  
Stacey, R. D., D. Griffin, and P. Shaw. 2000. ''Complexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking?''. London, U.K.: Routledge.
+
Senge, P.M. 1990, 2006. ''[[The Fifth Discipline]]: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.'' New York, NY, USA: Doubleday Currency.
 +
 
 +
Stacey, R.D., D. Griffin, and P. Shaw. 2000. ''Complexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking?'' London, U.K.: Routledge.
  
 
===Primary References===
 
===Primary References===
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. ''[[General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications]]''. Revised ed. New York, NY: Braziller.
+
Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. ''[[General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications]],'' Revised ed. New York, NY: Braziller.
 +
 
 +
Churchman, C.W. 1979. "[[The Systems Approach and its Enemies]]". New York: Basic Books.
 +
 
 +
Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. ''[[Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity]]: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture,'' 1st ed. Woburn, MA, USA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
 +
 
 +
Senge, P.M. 1990, 2006. ''[[The Fifth Discipline]]: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.'' New York, NY, USA: Doubleday Currency.
 +
 
 +
===Additional References===
 +
Jackson, M. 2003. ''Systems Thinking: Creating Holisms for Managers.'' Chichester, UK: Wiley.
  
Churchman, C. W. 1968. ''[[The Systems Approach and its Enemies]]''. New York, NY, USA: Dell Publishing.
+
Edson, R. 2008. ''Systems Thinking. Applied. A Primer'', in: ASYST Institute (ed.). Arlington, VA: Analytic Services.
  
Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. ''[[Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity]]: A platform for designing.'' 1st ed. Woburn, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
+
Klir, G. 2001. ''Facets of Systems Science'', 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
  
Lawson, H. 2010. ''[[A Journey Through the Systems Landscape]]'', London, Kings College, UK.
+
Koestler, A. 1967. ''The Ghost in the Machine.'' New York, NY, USA: Macmillan.
 +
Lawson, H. 2010. ''[[A Journey Through the Systems Landscape]].'' London, Kings College, UK.
  
Senge, P. M. 1990, 2006. ''[[The Fifth Discipline]]: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.'' New York, NY, USA: Doubleday Currency.
+
MITRE. 2012. “Systems Engineering Guide.” Accessed September 11, 2012. Available at: http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide.
  
===Additional References===
+
Rebovich, G., Jr. 2005. "Systems thinking for the enterprise (new and emerging perspectives)," in ''Volume 2 of Enterprise Systems Engineering Theory and Practice''. McLean, VA, USA:The MITRE Corporation.  
Edson, R. 2008. ''Systems Thinking. Applied. A Primer''. In: ASYST Institute (ed.). Arlington, VA: Analytic Services.
+
 
 +
Senge, P.M., A. Klieiner, C. Roberts, R.B. Ross, and B.J. Smith. 1994. ''The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization''. New York, NY, USA: Crown Business.  
 
----
 
----
<center>[[Overview of System Science|<- Previous Article]] | [[Systems Overview|Parent Article]] | [[System Concepts|Next Article ->]]
+
<center>[[Systems Thinking|< Previous Article]] | [[Systems Thinking|Parent Article]] | [[Concepts of Systems Thinking|Next Article >]]</center>
 +
 
 +
<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.10, released 06 May 2024'''</center>
  
 
[[Category:Part 2]][[Category:Topic]]
 
[[Category:Part 2]][[Category:Topic]]
 +
[[Category:Systems Thinking]]

Latest revision as of 23:22, 2 May 2024


Lead Author: Rick Adcock, Contributing Authors: Brian Wells, Bud Lawson


This topic is part of the Systems Thinking knowledge area (KA). The scopescope of systems thinkingsystems thinking is a starting point for dealing with real world situations using a set of related systems conceptssystems concepts discussed in the Concepts of Systems Thinking topic, systems principlesprinciples discussed in the Principles of Systems Thinking topic, and system patternspatterns discussed in the Patterns of Systems Thinking topic.

Introduction

The concepts, principles, and patterns of systems thinking have arisen both from the work of systems scientists and from the work of practitioners applying the insights of systems sciencesystems science to real-world problemsproblems.

HolismHolism has been a dominant theme in systems thinking for nearly a century, in recognition of the need to consider a systemsystem as a whole because of observed phenomena such as emergenceemergence. Proponents have included Wertheimer, Smuts, Bertalanffy, Weiss, (Ackoff 1979), (Klir 2001), and (Koestler 1967) among many others.

A more detailed discussion of the most important movements in systems theory can be found in History of Systems Science.

Identifying Systems of Interest

When humans observe or interact with a system, they allocate boundariesboundaries and names to parts of the system. This naming may follow the natural hierarchy of the system, but will also reflect the needs and experience of the observer to associate elementselements with common attributesattributes of purposespurposes relevant to their own. Thus, a number of systems of interestsystems of interest (SoIs) (Flood and Carson 1993) must be identified and they must be both relevant and include a set of elements which represent a system whole. This way of observing systems wherein the complexcomplex system relationships are focused around a particular system boundary is called systemic resolution.

Systems thinking requires an ongoing process of attention and adaptation to ensure that one has appropriately identified boundaries, dependencies, and relationships. Churchman (1968) and others have also considered broader ethical, political, and social questions related to management science with regards to the relative power and responsibility of the participants in system interventions. These are seen by critical systems thinkers as key factors to be considered in defining problem system boundaries.

A system contextsystem context can be used to define a SoI and to capture and agree on the important relationships between it, such as the systems which it works with directly and the systems which influence it in some way. When this approach is used to focus on part of a larger system, a balance of reductionismreductionism and holismholism is applied. This balance sits at the heart of a systems approachsystems approach. A systems context provides the tool for applying this balance and is thus an essential part of any systems approach and hence, of systems engineering (SE) as well. Approaches for describing the contextcontext of the different types of engineered systemsengineered systems are discussed in the Engineered System Context topic within the Systems Approach Applied to Engineered Systems KA.

Thoughts on Systems Thinking

Senge (1990) discusses systems thinkingsystems thinking in a number of ways as

a discipline for seeing wholes ... a framework for seeing interrelationships rather than things ... a process of discovery and diagnosis ... and as a sensibility for the subtle interconnectedness that gives living systems their unique character.(Senge 2006, 68-69)

Churchman came to define a systems approachsystems approach as requiring consideration of a system from the viewpointviewpoint of those outside its boundary (Churchman 1979). There are many demonstrations that choosing too narrow a boundary, either in terms of scope or timeline, results in the problem of the moment being solved only at the expense of a similar or bigger problem being created somewhere else in space, community, or time (Senge 2006) and (Meadows 1977). This is the “shifting the burden” archetype described in Patterns of Systems Thinking topic.

Churchman believes that an important componentcomponent of system knowledge comes from "others" or "enemies" outside the system; the systems approach begins when first you see the world through the eyes of another (Churchman 1968). In this famous phrase, Churchman suggests that people can step outside a system they are in and mentally try to consider it through the lenses of other people's valuesvalues. Churchman (1979) identified four main enemies of the systems approach namely: politics, morality, religion and aesthetics.

To Churchman, the "enemies" of the systems approach provide a powerful way of learning about the systems approach, precisely because they enable the rational thinker to step outside the boundary of a system and to look at it. It means that systems thinkers are not necessarily just involved within a system but are essentially involved in reasoning and decisions "outside" of systems rationality.

Some additional perspectives on systems thinking definitions are as follows:

  • “Systems thinking requires the consciousness of the fact that we deal with models of our reality and not with the reality itself.” (Ossimitz 1997, 1)
  • “…what is often called ‘systemic thinking’ …is …a bundle of capabilities, and at the heart of it is the ability to apply our normal thought processes, our common sense, to the circumstances of a given situation.” (Dörner 1996, 199)
  • “Systems thinking provides a powerful way of taking account of causal connections that are distant in time and space.” (Stacey 2000, 9)

ChaosChaos and complexitycomplexity theories have also impacted the development of systems thinking, including the treatment of such concepts as emergenceemergence. According to Gharajedaghi:

Systems thinking is the art of simplifying complexity. It is about seeing through chaos, managing interdependency, and understanding choice. We see the world as increasingly more complex and chaotic because we use inadequate concepts to explain it. When we understand something, we no longer see it as chaotic or complex. (Gharajedaghi 1999, 283)

Kasser considers systems thinking to be one element in a wider system of holisticholistic thinking. Kasser defines holistic thinking as follows: "...the combination of analysis [in the form of elaboration], systems thinking and critical thinking" (Kasser 2010).

Systems Thinking and the Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge

From these discussions, one can see systems thinking as both a set of founding ideas for the development of systems theories and practices and also as a pervasive way of thinking needed by those developing and applying those theories.

The SEBoK is particularly focused on how systems thinking can support a systems approach to engineered systems.

In order to examine a SoI in more detail, to understand, use, or change it in some way, practitioners are faced with an apparent “systems thinking paradox.” One can only truly understand a system by considering all of its possible relationships and interactions, inside and outside of its boundary and in all possible future situations (of both system creation and life), but this makes it apparently impossible for people to understand a system or to predict all of the consequences of changes to it.

If this means that all possible system relationships and environmentalenvironmental conditions must be considered to fully understand the consequences of creating or changing a system, what useful work can be done?

In many ways this is the essence of all human endeavors, whether they are technical, managerial, social or political, the so-called known knowns and unknown unknowns. The systems approach is a way of tackling real world problemsproblems and making use of the conceptsconcepts, principlesprinciples and patternspatterns of systems thinking to enable systems to be engineered and used.

The systems principles of encapsulationencapsulation and separation of concerns in Principles of Systems Thinking relate to this issue. Some of the detail of complex situations must be hidden to allow focus on changes to a system elementsystem element. The impact must be considered of any changes that might be made across sufficient related system componentscomponents to fit within the acceptable commercial and social risksrisks that must be considered. Engineering and management disciplines deal with this by gathering as much knowledge as necessary to proceed at a risk level acceptable to the required need. The assessment of what is enough and how much risk to take can, to some extent, be codified with rules and regulations, and managed through processesprocesses and procedures; however, it is ultimately a combination of the skill and judgment of the individuals performing the work.

References

Works Cited

Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, Revised ed. New York, NY, USA: Braziller.

Churchman, C.W. 1968. The Systems Approach. New York, NY, USA: Delacorte Press.

Churchman, C.W. 1979. The Systems Approach and Its Enemies. New York, NY, USA: Basic Books.

Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.

Dorner, H., and A. Karpati. 2008. "Mentored innovation in teacher training using two virtual collaborative learning environments," in Beyond Knowledge: The Legacy of Competence--Meaningful Computer-Based Learning Environments, eds. J. Zumbach, N. Schwartz, T. Seufert and L. Kester. Vol. VIII. New York, NY, USA: Springer.

Flood, R.L. and E.R. Carson. 1993. Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to the Theory and Application of Systems Science, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.

Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture, 1st ed. Woburn, MA, USA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Jackson, M. 1989. "Which Systems Methodology When? Initial Results from a Research Program," in R. Flood, M. Jackson and P. Keys (eds), Systems Prospects: The Next Ten Years of Systems Research. New York, NY, USA: Plenum.

Kasser, J. 2010. "Holistic thinking and how it can produce innovative solutions to difficult problems." Paper presented at 7th Bi-annual European Systems Engineering Conference (EuSEC), Stockholm, Sweden, 24-27 May 2010.

Meadows, D. H. et al. 1977. "Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind." New American Library, paperback, ISBN 0-451-13695-0; Universe Books, hardcover, 1972, ISBN 0-87663-222-3 (scarce).

Ossimitz, G. 1997. "The development of systems thinking skills using system dynamics modeling tools," in Universitat Klagenfurt [database online]. Klagenfurt, Austria: Universitat Klagenfurt.Accessed November 12 2007. Available at: http://wwwu.uni-klu.ac.at/gossimit/sdyn/gdm_eng.htm.

Senge, P.M. 1990, 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA: Doubleday Currency.

Stacey, R.D., D. Griffin, and P. Shaw. 2000. Complexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking? London, U.K.: Routledge.

Primary References

Bertalanffy, L. von. 1968. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, Revised ed. New York, NY: Braziller.

Churchman, C.W. 1979. "The Systems Approach and its Enemies". New York: Basic Books.

Gharajedaghi, J. 1999. Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture, 1st ed. Woburn, MA, USA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Senge, P.M. 1990, 2006. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA: Doubleday Currency.

Additional References

Jackson, M. 2003. Systems Thinking: Creating Holisms for Managers. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Edson, R. 2008. Systems Thinking. Applied. A Primer, in: ASYST Institute (ed.). Arlington, VA: Analytic Services.

Klir, G. 2001. Facets of Systems Science, 2nd ed. New York, NY, USA: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Koestler, A. 1967. The Ghost in the Machine. New York, NY, USA: Macmillan. Lawson, H. 2010. A Journey Through the Systems Landscape. London, Kings College, UK.

MITRE. 2012. “Systems Engineering Guide.” Accessed September 11, 2012. Available at: http://www.mitre.org/work/systems_engineering/guide.

Rebovich, G., Jr. 2005. "Systems thinking for the enterprise (new and emerging perspectives)," in Volume 2 of Enterprise Systems Engineering Theory and Practice. McLean, VA, USA:The MITRE Corporation.

Senge, P.M., A. Klieiner, C. Roberts, R.B. Ross, and B.J. Smith. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York, NY, USA: Crown Business.


< Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article >
SEBoK v. 2.10, released 06 May 2024